Defending
Drones at UN,
Koh Says
Transparency
Is Aided by US
on
HRC, 2d Term
Promises

By
Matthew
Russell Lee

UNITED
NATIONS,
October 19 --
When Harold
Koh came to
the UN on
Friday to
pitch the US'
candidacy for
a second term
on the Human
Rights
Council, his
opening
statement did
not mention an
issue with
which he
has become
associated:
drones.

Nor
did the
moderator's
question to
him -- Koh was
asked what the
US
would do on
its HRC
campaign
pledge about
torture. While
important,
this seemed a
softball
focused on the
previous Bush
administration.
(An
ACLU question
extended it to
what the Obama
administration
will
do to hold
accountable
those who
tortured in
the past.)

There
were only ten
minutes left
when Inner
City Press was
able to ask
Koh
to "address
drones, on
which there's
been
controversy at
the
Human Rights
Council and
elsewhere,
whether their
use complies
with
human rights
law. Would the
US support a
special
session or
inquiry
into the use
of drones to
commit
executions?"

When
it was Koh's
turn to answer
-- he was
moved up in
the queue --
he
cited to his
own speech "in
March 2010,
echoed by John
Brennan
at the Wilson
Center....The
point is, all
killing is
regrettable
[but] not all
killing is
illegal."

He
said that
killings by
drone "in the
course of
armed conflict
or
in self
defense is
consistent
with
international
law." He cited
Al Qaeda, the
Taliban and
"associated
forces" --
presumably
including Al
Shabab in
Somalia and
forces in
norther Mali
or Azawad
-- and said it
is "not
illegal to
target an
individual who
is
leader of an
opposing
force."

What
about a
16-year old
who is not a
leader? What
about
"collateral
damage"?

These
weren't
answered.
Rather, Koh
said he
thought he
questions were
"ask[ed] in
friendly way."
He closed with
the pitch that
it
would easier
to work on the
issue and get
"transparency"
if
the US remains
on the Human
Rights
Council. And
then he left.

Inner
City Press had
also asked,
"if the others
running [for
the Human
Rights Council
had] a
interest in
having drones
addressed at
the
Council, the
use of drones
in Pakistan,
Yemen and
other
countries."

But
the other
candidates
present did
not address
this in their
answers
after the
question.
Germany's
Permanent
Representative
Peter Wittig
answered a
question about
vote-trading
by saying that
Permanent
members of the
Security
Council don't
have to engage
in it, but
others do.
Estonia and
Montenegro
addressed this
and other
points,
but not
drones.

Argentina
acknowledged
that the Latin
slate is
"clean" --
three
candidates for
three seats --
just as it ran
unopposed the
day before
for a two-year
seat on the
Security
Council.

Ireland's
closing
statement
concerned the
"style" it
brings; the
moderator's
Irish question
about about
food
security."
Sweden
focused on
Internet
freedom -- the
country hosts,
for example,
sites
that Russia
argues are
subject to UN
Security
Council
sanctions.

Greece
spoke about
the difficulty
of being
besieged by
immigrants.
There
were echoes of
the previous
Romney - Obama
debate, to
which Koh
jokingly
referred. But
drones are no
joke. Watch
this site.